Ranganathan, J. - (1.) Leave to appeal is granted. Both counsel have been heard and we proceed to dispose of the appeal itself by this order.
(2.) The appellant, Suresh Jindal, is an Indian film producer with several films to his credit. The respondents, three Italian companies and a foreign film producer acting on behalf of these companies, are claimed to have entered into an agreement with the appellant for the production and exhibition of a television serial based on an Italian novel. According to the appellant, the respondents were unable. to make any headway in their project and they were not even able to obtain the permission of the Government of India for shooting the film in India which was a prerequisite before they could start their project. He claims that the respondents therefore got into touch with him on, 30th April, 1989. There were certain negotiations between the parties and the purport of an agreement said. to have been arrived at in the course of these negotiations was set down in a letter dated 2nd May, 1989 written by the fourth respondent to the appellant. According to the appellant, there was a concluded agreement between the parties under which the appellant was to arrange to get the Government of India's approval for the project and also to act as a co-producer and discharge all such functions that a co-producer might be required to. It is further the case of the appellant that by making certain necessary modifications to the script, necessitated by the policies and guidelines of the Indian Government with which he was familiar, he was able to obtain, on August 1, 1989, the permission of the Government of India for the shooting of the film. He also took concrete steps for the study of suitable locations for the shooting of the film and to discharge his responsibilities as a co-producer. But, he complaints, soon after the Government's permission was obtained, on August 26, 1989, the respondents began cold shouldering him, dissociated themselves and proceeded ahead with the production of the film without his participation. The appellant, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 2nd May, 1989. He also filed two applications for interim relief. By the first, he sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants - respondents from proceeding with the production of the film and from transferring and/ or assigning the rights of the appellant under the agreement to any other person. By the second application, he sought to restrain the respondents from carrying on with the production or exhibition of the picture without the participation and/ or involvement of the appellant as one of the producers. It, however, appears that, before these interim reliefs could be obtained, the respondents completed the production of the film. Therefore, when the applications for interim relief came on for hearing, the appellant confined his claim only to a three-second display, in the "credit-titles" of the serial, of his name as a "co-producer". This relief was not granted to him by the learned single Judge on the original side and an appeal by him to a Division Bench was also unsuccessful. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Before us, again, the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his claim for interim relief in the manner already set out. He also stated that the appellant was not even keen to be shown as a "co-producer" and that he would be satisfied if some acknowledgment was publicly made of his participation in the project.;